Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Incapacity Benefit

Ian Lucas: If he will take action to identify recipients of incapacity benefit who will be permanently unable to work.

David Blunkett: As part of the emerging conclusions of the review of welfare reform, I shall recognise in the autumn that there is a group of individuals who, permanently or temporarily, are so severely ill or disabled that it is impossible at that time for them to take up work, and that they deserve all the support that we can give them. The reform agenda will, however, ensure that we do not write anyone off, and that we write them in if they are prepared and able to take up the opportunities that we as a society have an obligation to provide for them.

Ian Lucas: There are indeed individuals who are not fit to work and never will be. At present, some of them become distressed by receiving application forms which are unnecessary and which, in an improved system, would not be delivered to them. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue with the course that he is following to assist those who are capable of work to move into work, but to ensure that those who are not capable do not have to fill in the forms that sometimes cause them so much difficulty.

David Blunkett: I accept my hon. Friend's point entirely. There is a category of exemption and it is clear that those, for instance, who have terminal illness should be treated quite differently from those who, temporarily or on a longer-term basis, might be able to return to work with the right sort of help and encouragement. The system should reflect that difference, and our welfare reform paper in the autumn will seek to reinforce that.

David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of those who have long-term mental illness that is often episodic? The present benefits system does not cope with them because it does not recognise the times when people are available for work and the times when they clearly are not available for work and are suffering from the illness, which is almost certainly long-term and may be permanent.

David Blunkett: The welfare system must reflect the fact that increasingly, people may be able to undertake work for a period and then find themselves on benefits for a time. They need to be able to return to benefits without any disadvantage and in the easiest possible way, not only for themselves but to assure employers that there will not be a major disadvantage to them. We are considering how we could work more effectively with employers to keep those people on the books while not disadvantaging the employer. The linking rules, which are improved substantially from next year, will make it possible for people to return to their benefit after a substantial period in work. There is much more to be done on this, and given that 40 per cent. of those on incapacity benefit have at least some form of mental health problem, it is an increasing challenge.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful for what the Minister has said and the sensitivity with which he said it. Each of us has constituents with such deep, lasting psychiatric problems that they are unemployable. They recognise that, as do those who administer the system. It is an embarrassment to employers when they are sent along. It cannot be rocket science that a common-sense rule should prevail. I hope the Minister will be able to imbue the system and regulations with that and hand it down the pyramid. Common sense would help everyone, but at present it is not and cannot be applied.

David Blunkett: The personal capability assessment ought to be able to distinguish between those with severe mental health problems and those with temporary depression, who constitute quite a large proportion of the 38 per cent. who are on IB, for whom positive help, including work, would be a way out of that challenge. Including those who are entitled to IB through the personal capability assessment, we ought to be able to distinguish between people who will be supported long-term and those who will continue to get help, even though they are receiving incapacity benefit.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Last week the Government discovered that they had overlooked another 130,000 incapacity benefit claimants, bringing the total to 2.8 million, so reform is urgent. Will the Secretary of State confirm that on 12 May the Prime Minister promised on his behalf at his weekly press conference that
	"there will be a Green Paper on reform of incapacity benefit before the summer recess"?
	As we have only three days to go, will the Secretary of State tell us on which day this week the Green Paper will be published, or is that yet another Prime Ministerial promise made within days of a general election, to be broken only a few weeks later?

David Blunkett: First, the previous Government set in train the sampling system for incapacity benefit recipients. This is the first occasion on which I have been criticised at the Dispatch Box for openness, transparency and clarity in making the figures more realistic and more honest. Although the figures have been readjusted to conform with reality rather than  sampling, the downwards trend and the 29,000 reduction in recipients remain the same.
	Secondly, I will not publish the Green Paper today, tomorrow or on Wednesday. We have concluded that we must properly assess the situation in 10 weeks— [Interruption.] Well, I do not imagine for a moment that the Opposition, given their problems, are keen to address the issue now rather than at length in the autumn, when they might have a leader with whom we can deal.

Women's Pensions

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on his recent announcement of a consultation on making the pension system work better for women.

David Blunkett: Last week, I announced that we will produce a background paper and hold a forum on the long-neglected group of individuals known as women before the publication by Adair Turner of the Pensions Commission report. Women have lost out enormously over the years, first, because of social and economic change and, secondly, because of the change in both family and work patterns.

Tony Lloyd: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive tone on women and pensions? Working patterns are becoming more complicated in both the world of work and, indeed, the world of non-work, and both men and women are taking time off from the workplace to retrain, to undertake caring duties or for other reasons—for example, part-time working has trebled among men in the past 10 years. As the Equal Opportunities Commission has argued, if we get it right for women, we get it right for everyone.

David Blunkett: That is a lovely phrase. Although it does not hold true for everything in life, it is attractive when used in relation to retirement income. Given that we had to intervene to overcome poverty in retirement, and that twice as many women have benefited from the pension credit as men, it is self-evident that the historic failure to recognise caring duties has disadvantaged women enormously. Only 17 per cent. of women currently retire with full entitlement compared with 80 per cent. of men, so the challenge is great.

Tony Baldry: Why do the Government not reduce the lower earnings level to about £60 a week, which would enable more than 500,000 women to enter the state retirement pension system? The national insurance system is not an insurance system—it is a covenant whereby today's taxpayers undertake to pay for today's pensioners on the understanding that a future generation will pay for our pensions. It is harsh that the system excludes so many women because they do not earn enough.

David Blunkett: That is a good point, and it was the reason that my predecessor and the Chancellor agreed to lift the national insurance threshold to £94 a week and to reduce the eligible earnings limit to £82 a week, which entitled 500,000 women. We are making progress, but much remains to be done, and I am glad that at least one Opposition Member supports the trend of our policy.

James McGovern: Many women lose out on pension equality not only because they take time out to care for children early in life, but because they take time out later in life to become carers. Will the Secretary of State take steps to address those issues on behalf of women?

David Blunkett: Yes, I will. The support that the Labour Government introduced for those who are caring can be extended. One of the key issues that we will want to address in the autumn is how people can be provided with accreditation during the period for which they are involved in caring, which the current home protection does not do.

David Laws: On making the pension system work better for women, does the Secretary of State agree that this is not only about reforming the basic pension but about ensuring that there is good provision in areas such as occupational pensions? The ombudsman is considering the issue and the report is expected in a couple of months. If the ombudsman finds maladministration on the part of the Government, will compensation be paid?

David Blunkett: I think it would be wise for me to wait until the ombudsman reports before making commitments to Parliament that might lead me down avenues that I would regret, especially since, as has been pointed out, we have only three days until the recess. I can say, however, that in the past few years enormous steps have been taken to redress some of the issues that might otherwise have been highlighted in the report—for instance, the position of part-time workers, the majority of whom happen to be women, who from five years ago had their entitlement adjusted. In fact, 6 million workers were put on equal terms in relation to occupational pension rights in a way that had not occurred before. For a whole tranche of the people whom we represent, there have been massive improvements in entitlement and in reality.

Vera Baird: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he grasped the gravity of the situation facing women as regards pensions. He really is to be congratulated on doing that so well.
	May I return to the lower earnings limit and contributions for the basic state pension? The lower earnings limit may well be too high—about 1.4 million women are priced out of getting contributions to their pensions—but another problem with it is that someone with two part-time jobs cannot aggregate the earnings. Even if they are earning well over the lower earnings limit and working for 40 hours a week, without the ability to aggregate they will still get no contribution to their pension. Will my right hon. Friend look at that as a matter of urgency, too?

David Blunkett: Yes; my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions indicated in a recent debate that we are prepared to consider this complex area. However, the Chancellor has managed to reflect the principle in the tax credits system, whereby two people can credit their hours together in order to reach the eligible 30 hours for the upper limit. It is therefore not beyond the wit of woman or man to find a system that might address the inequality and inequity that my hon. Friend outlines.

Malcolm Rifkind: Is the Secretary of State aware that while we welcome his call for a national consensus on women's pensions and pensions generally, we have noted his charming admission that such a consensus does not yet exist within the Cabinet? Will he confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the problem, and will he share with us what exactly they disagree about?

David Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman has a sense of humour, which is very welcome. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, through the pension credit, lifted 2.7 million people out of poverty in retirement.

Andrew MacKinlay: To his credit.

David Blunkett: As my hon. Friend says, it is to his credit that he has done so.
	We are therefore at the starting point of accepting the challenge of the nation in ensuring that people are not in penury in retirement, and then moving forward to incentivise people and to ensure that they think and plan for the future. The Government will play their role alongside employers and individuals. This is not about divides between particular individuals or politicians; it is genuinely a challenge for the nation, and any party that seeks to duck it and to make party political capital out of it will be dealt with severely by the people whom we serve.

Mental Health

John Pugh: What steps he is taking to get people with long-term mental health problems back into work; and if he will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: We want to support the many people with mental health conditions who want to keep their jobs or to return to work. For many, work helps them to maintain or regain their confidence and self-esteem and improves their mental health and well-being. Our new deal for disabled people and pathways to work are two schemes that demonstrate what works best for people with long-term mental health problems. We will build on that knowledge and success in the proposals that we expect to publish in the autumn.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for her response. Given that mental health problems account for as much benefit money as back problems, the public stigma attached to such problems and the lack of public understanding of them, does she agree with Mind that we need a more proactive approach both to helping people with mental health problems into work and to keeping them there?

Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely with that proposition. We do need a more proactive approach, which is why the Government have been introducing innovative new schemes such as pathways to work and the new deal for disabled people, and why the Green Paper that we shall put forward in the autumn will cover this very issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join the debate which we hope will stem from that Green Paper.

Roger Berry: One source of support for those with mental health problems is the access to work programme, and yet it seems to be one of the best-kept secrets in government. Three out of four employers have not heard of it, let alone know what it does. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the House this afternoon that the Government will engage in a serious publicity programme in relation to access to work and ensure that the effects of that are properly funded—that there is more money for access to work?

Margaret Hodge: I hope that my hon. Friend will support me in the necessary cuts that might follow were we to double or treble that budget, which I agree is well used. That budget has been doubled since we have been in government, and has been used effectively. With the new obligations on employers arising out of disability discrimination legislation, we are considering how it is right to expect employers, especially public sector employers, to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace for some people with disabilities who work, and how we can reuse some of the money and resources thereby released to get greater take-up. The scheme is undoubtedly popular, and I would love to be able to expand it to its fullest. I agree with him that we should build on what works best.

Robert Wilson: Is the Minister aware that her Government are making significant problems for people who are trying to get back into work? I recently visited a mental health charity in my constituency that offers people four hours' work a week in return for the minimum wage. When the minimum wage rises to £5.05, either their benefit or the work that they do at the charity will have to be cut. Will she consider that urgently and try to remedy the situation?

Margaret Hodge: We are constantly reviewing the limits that enable people to do some work while retaining their full benefits, to have regard to changes in work rates and inflation. It is important for many disabled people who have been locked into benefit dependency for a long time to enjoy the opportunity of a few hours in work as they move into proper paid jobs—[Interruption.] I have just said that we constantly keep the matter under review, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that as an undertaking.

Lyn Brown: Does the Minister agree that a good way of reintroducing people into work is through sessional and part-time work? If so, is she aware that the earnings disregard element within the jobseeker's allowance and income support has remained static for many years? Will she agree to consider that in the next Budget?

Margaret Hodge: We will always review all the earnings disregards to ensure that they are properly set so that we encourage those who have been out of the labour market for a long time to start re-entering it, and to ensure that people get paid the proper rate for the job that they do. We always keep that under review, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so over the coming years.

Pension Protection Fund

Stephen Crabb: If he will make a statement on the Pension Protection Fund's statement of investment principles.

Stephen Timms: The Pensions Act 2004 requires the board of the Pension Protection Fund to prepare and maintain a statement of its investment principles and policies. The statement was first published on 23 June, and is available on the PPF website.

Stephen Crabb: Does the Minister consider it consistent with concerns about moral hazard in pensions protection for the PPF to take equity stakes in companies?

Stephen Timms: In its first year of operation, no schemes will be transferred to the PPF. The first statement can therefore state confidently that 100 per cent. of its assets will be invested in bonds. It will, however, review the statement every 12 months. We can expect a revised statement once scheme assets and liabilities start to be transferred, as annexe 3 to the current statement makes clear.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman has the Heath Lambert case in mind. I understand that the company sought clearance from the regulator for a restructuring that involved its pension fund taking a 10 per cent. equity stake in the new company. Especially in the light of the concerns about moral hazard that the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, before giving clearance the regulator must be sure that the company is heading for insolvency, so there would be a call on the PPF in any event. If the scheme were transferred to the PPF in the future, the PPF would hold that stake. I do not see anything inappropriate in that arrangement.

Richard Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important investments that the PPF makes on behalf of us all is in ensuring that those who would otherwise lose all their pensions, or a substantial amount of them, receive valuable support? I congratulate the Government on introducing that system, but problems are arising in relation to people who have taken early retirement. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the position at MG Rover, where some people could not even achieve the 90 per cent. of earnings, subject to the cap, that others below pensionable age will receive. Will he look into that? It could have perverse effects for the PPF.

Stephen Timms: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance and value of the PPF's work in helping to rebuild confidence in pensions saving. I also pay tribute to the work that he has done—not least in a number of telephone calls to me—on behalf of his constituents working at Rover.
	Under the arrangement made by Parliament, the PPF will provide 90 per cent. compensation for those who, immediately before the assessment date, are under the scheme's normal pension age. That applies to those who took early retirement, as well as those who are still in work. Otherwise, those who continued to work would be penalised. As my hon. Friend says, the amount is subject to a cap which is currently £25,000 a year.
	It is necessary to establish the right balance between compensation, which we all want to be maximised, and the cost to other schemes through the levy. If we removed the 90 per cent. cap, there would be an additional cost of about £100 million a year to levy payers. I think we have set the right balance.

Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister agree that at a time when large pension funds have moved from equities to bonds, it is at least counter-intuitive of the PPF to invest in the shares of companies that face financial difficulties precisely because of their pension deficits? Does he expect deals such as the one that was done with Heath Lambert to be rare events? Will he confirm that the details of that deal will be placed in the public domain? If not, why not?

Stephen Timms: Such deals will certainly be rare events, but, as I said, the arrangement that was agreed means that the Heath Lambert pension fund will obtain an equity stake in the new company. If it subsequently goes to the PPF, other assets owned by the Heath Lambert fund will go with it, but I do not think that that will happen very often. The regulator is aware of the impact of a company collapse on employment and will always bear it in mind, along with its primary duty to protect pension scheme members.

Child Support Agency

Paul Rowen: What his estimate is of the number of outstanding Child Support Agency claims.

James Plaskitt: Of 680,000 new scheme applications, 260,000 are still to be cleared. A further 78,000 old scheme cases are still to be cleared, down from 130,000 a year ago. Some progress has been made, but those figures again illustrate the scale of the problems with the agency. We have therefore asked the chief executive to conduct a strategic review. His findings will be presented in the coming months, and we will report to the House in due course.

Paul Rowen: I am sure that the Minister will recall that, in January, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions expressed concern and said that the CSA was living on borrowed time. At that time, just under a quarter of a million cases were outstanding. On the figures that he has given us this afternoon, the figure is now up to 330,000. Does he agree that the CSA is living not just on borrowed time but on stolen time and that that delay is causing misery and despair for many working families?

James Plaskitt: The delays are, of course, a problem. I think all hon. Members deal with these matters in their surgeries, which is why we are anxious to make progress in tackling the problems. The key is improving compliance rates because, if we can get those up, the agency can deal effectively with the backlog. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that, based on the first results from 2005–06, compliance rates are reaching 82 per cent. in new cases and up to 75 per cent. under the old scheme. That is a remarkable improvement on where we were some time ago.

Adrian Bailey: May I bring to the Minister's attention the fact that, as a Member representing individuals affected by the CSA, one of the great difficulties that I have is in getting a coherent response when individuals want to know when their cases will be migrated from the old to the new system? Can he give us some assurance that there will be some coherent rationale for the migration and then ensure that the civil servants at least let us know what it is?

James Plaskitt: There is quite a queue forming on the migration question. Indeed, I used to ask about it myself quite regularly. No migration has taken place yet because we have to ensure, first, that the case files on record are clean and, secondly, that the IT is absolutely robust. Work is in progress on both those issues. Then we will be in a position to do the migration. It will be done in a logical way, which should enable my hon. Friend and others to reassure their constituents. It is a little way off but we will report on it later in the year.

Michael Weir: Should the day of migration ever, thankfully, come, there will still be a problem in that, as I understand it, it may be several years before migrating cases will converge with those under the new scheme. Given the delays that there have been in the system, will the Minister look at whether it is possible to accelerate the convergence between the two payment schemes?

James Plaskitt: It is worth pointing out that there are at the moment 480,000 new scheme cases on the new system and 680,000 old scheme cases on the old system. Some migration already takes place: where there is a linkage in cases, they transfer to the new technology. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), as soon as the files are clean and the IT is robust, we will be in a position to commence the migration.

Chris Bryant: I hope that I am not letting the cat out of the bag, but the Minister will know that one way of getting migrated from the old to the new system is to persuade an ex-partner to suspend her claim for a few weeks while continuing to pay her child support allowance and then to make a new claim. Is not there a mounting injustice that we need to put right urgently? Some of the letters that are going out to constituents trying to explain the rationale fall a long way short of what the Minister has just explained to us.

James Plaskitt: That is why it is important to get these issues resolved. There has to be quite a lengthy lag between the two incidents. It is not straightforward to come out of an existing case and to come back into a new one. The price of doing that is quite a lengthy period without maintenance or benefit in some cases, so although some people have looked at that possibility it is quite a tricky thing to do.

Paul Goodman: Since work and pensions questions last took place, the independent case examiner's annual report into the CSA has been published. She says, following on from some of the points made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that referrals to her office have rocketed, that parents' experience of dealing with the CSA is demoralising, that it is almost impossible for people to obtain up-to-date information about their case, that they cannot have confidence in the phone system and that she has upheld the vast majority of complaints. Bearing all that in mind, can the Minister guarantee that there will be an improvement next year, or is it the case that Ministers cannot get a grip on the problems of the CSA?

James Plaskitt: Let me make it clear that we welcome the independent case examiner's report. She has provided a very good analysis of the situation, but it is important to put her findings in perspective. Of some 1.4 million cases, just under 4,000 referrals were made, which is 0.2 per cent. of the agency's entire case load. Of those 4,000 referrals, the independent case examiner took up only 478, of which 84 per cent. were upheld.
	Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited about the CSA situation, he should mix his attitude with a little contrition. At the base of the CSA document, it says, "Made in Conservative Britain."

Pension Credit

Stewart Jackson: How many people are not receiving the pension credit to which they are entitled.

Stephen Timms: More than 2.7 million households in Great Britain are now receiving pension credit—nearly 1 million more than the number that received the minimum income guarantee that preceded it—including, incidentally, 4,780 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The latest estimate is that 3.85 million households are entitled to pension credit. That is rather fewer than was first estimated, but further data should be available by the end of the year.

Stewart Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he confirm that, despite the Secretary of State's claim at oral questions on 20 June that there has been a "substantial drop" in the number of people not receiving the pension credit to which they are entitled, take-up has reduced considerably since the beginning of 2004?

Stephen Timms: Certainly not. Take-up has continued to rise, and, as I said, it is has now exceeded 2.7 million. As I also said, the estimate of the total number entitled has fallen somewhat from the original estimate, but actual take-up has continued to rise. In 1997, a lot of single pensioners had incomes of less than £70 a week through income support. Now, every one of them is entitled to at least £109 a week through the pension credit, which is the major factor behind the recent declaration by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, for the first time, pensioners are no more likely to be poor than anyone else. Take-up is much higher today among those who stand to gain the most from the pension credit, and if the hon. Gentleman knows of people in his own constituency who should be receiving it but are not, I should be grateful if he would let me know.

Frank Field: Is the Minister's experience in his constituency the same as mine, which is that it is very difficult to find anybody who has been eligible for pension credit for any length of time? Might that suggest that the official data have wrongly estimated the numbers who can claim it, and that—far from there being a problem with non-take-up—the pension credit has been such a success that unless the Government undertake major long-term pension reform, it could be unsustainable in the long run?

Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the significantly higher level of take-up, based on anecdotal evidence, than the data suggest. Overall, the data suggest a current take-up level of some 75 per cent. Take-up among those entitled to the guarantee credit—the people likely to benefit the most—is about 80 per cent., and among single women it is perhaps as high as 90 per cent. So, like my right hon. Friend, I think that the pension credit has gone a very long way toward addressing the scandal of pensioner poverty that existed in 1997.

James Clappison: Does the Minister plan to undertake research into the effect of means-testing on pension credit take-up, particularly bearing in mind the commitment given by the current Chancellor when in opposition to abolishing means-testing for pensioners?

Stephen Timms: The pension credit has directed extra help at those who need it most, which is why we have seen a dramatic reduction in pensioner poverty since 1997. In addition, Pension Service staff spoke to the more than 200,000 customers who visited them in the quarter April to June 2005, in order to make sure that they received all the help to which they are entitled. That has generated 43,000 applications for the pension credit. We continue to work very hard on this issue, and as a result, we are seeing significant increases in take-up and new applications.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend will be aware, from earlier answers to questions, of how the pension credit has changed the quality of life of some of the poorest citizens in this country. What steps, if any, are in place to ensure that information about how to apply for the pension credit reaches the parts of the community that most need it—ethnic minority pensioners, for example, or women pensioners who, as we heard earlier, are often at the bottom of the chain when it comes to receiving pension entitlements—and where pensioner poverty is the likely result?

Stephen Timms: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Many of us had the experience during the election campaign of meeting retired people whose lives had been transformed by the improvements brought about by the pension credit. We are working hard at finding new ways of getting information across. I agree that there is a particular challenge when it comes to pensioners in the ethnic minority communities, and we are developing some new ideas. Many visits are taking place: I have already mentioned that there were 200,000 in the last quarter as compared with 130,000 in the same quarter of the previous year. What I hope we will increasingly be able to do is to use data that the Department gains from other sources to identify those who stand to benefit from pension credit but are not yet receiving it. We can then help them to make a claim and perhaps even inform them that they are entitled to the credit although they do not realise it. There is much important work to be done on that.

Nigel Dodds: Despite what the Minister says about the take-up of pension credit, the figures show that in Northern Ireland only one in three pensioners are in receipt of it. Will the Minister look further into the issue of regional differences in the take-up of pension credit? What can be done to improve the take-up in areas where it is particularly low? The figures that I quoted are actually official figures released by the Government.

Stephen Timms: I did not quite catch the statistic that the hon. Gentleman gave. If he is saying that one in three pensioners in Northern Ireland are actually receiving pension credit, that is not very far out from the proportion that obtains across the country as a whole. If there are difficulties in Northern Ireland that the hon. Gentleman thinks require special attention I would of course be happy to discuss them with my ministerial colleagues.

Medical Appeal Tribunals

Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to review the operation and effectiveness of medical appeal tribunals.

Margaret Hodge: Appeal tribunals and their decisions are totally independent of the Department. We do, however, have responsibility for their administrative support. From April 2006, that responsibility will be transferred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We currently have no plans to review operational procedures of the appeal tribunals.

Gordon Prentice: I must tell my Friend that that is a disappointing reply. Amazing as it may seem, doctors sometimes get things wrong and they sometimes underestimate the severity of the condition that they are diagnosing. My concern is that, in some cases, the medical appeal tribunals accept the original diagnosis at face value, which can lead to injustice. My question to my Friend is this. Notwithstanding the fact that appeal tribunals are independent bodies, surely training is needed so that members of the MATs can learn from their mistakes.

Margaret Hodge: I am still trying to find the question rather than the statement in that, but I took the first element of the statement as being that doctors occasionally get things wrong. Well, yes they do, but so do we all—[Interruption]—Opposition Members as well as Government Members, although some of us are better at admitting it than others. On the issue of training, all those who support the appeals process are trained and the chairman of the appeals tribunal has a statutory duty to ensure that all are trained. The medically qualified personnel are also trained and the chairman undertakes that training in consultation with the chief medical officer.

Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Lady look carefully into the issue of expert medical witnesses in all tribunals and courts of law in the light of the discredited evidence given by Sir Roy Meadows? Will the Government pause for reflection and issue stringent guidelines as to the context in which such expert medical evidence should be considered?

Margaret Hodge: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but she has strayed a bit from what is relevant for discussion at this afternoon's questions. The issue that she mentioned has absolutely nothing to do either with social security appeals tribunals or with any of the tribunals that are responsible for ensuring benefits. I am sure that the issue that she has raised, arising from publicity about a decision taken last week, will be dealt with appropriately by all Ministers and authorities who have direct responsibility for it. We do not.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that those particular doctors are all employed by private firms. Although I am sure that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is full of people with great medical expertise, I wonder if my right hon. Friend can give me some assurance that there will be a medical audit of the medical skills of the people employed by those private firms?

Margaret Hodge: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All those who give their advice as medical practitioners need to demonstrate to whoever they work for that they are appropriately qualified as medical practitioners. That will be part of the infrastructure for any of the work associated with any of the benefits for which we have responsibility.

Anne Begg: We know that more than 50 per cent. of appeals overturn the original decision, so there is obviously a big issue about getting the decision right in the first place. That is of particular interest to my constituents with mental health problems, who lose their benefit. They know that they are unfit to work and will not sign the jobseeker's allowance form because that entails stating that they are ready for work and so losing their income support. In both the cases I have in mind, my constituents won on appeal, but they suffered a great deal of stress while they were waiting because they had no income on which to live.

Margaret Hodge: I appreciate the issue that my hon. Friend draws to the attention of the House and we are looking at it as we think through the reforms that will be part of the Green Paper to be published in the autumn. All the matters that go before tribunals, or are subject to assessment, are always a matter for professional judgment and it is difficult to get utterly consistent, universal results. That is something that we all have to live with, but what we must try to do is to minimise the impact that that can have on an individual's standard of living or their life chances.

Health and Safety (Theme Parks/Fun Fairs)

Graham Allen: What representations he has received from the family of Megan Wilcox on health and safety arrangements at smaller theme parks and fun fairs; and if he will make a statement.

Anne McGuire: First, I extend my sympathy to the family of Megan Wilcox for their tragic loss. I have received no representation from the family. I am aware, however, that my hon. Friend has himself been in recent contact with Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Minister responsible for health and safety.

Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend and Lord Hunt for the personal interest that they have taken in this tragic case of a seven-year-old girl who tripped and fell in a fun park and died from her injuries. Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to discover that owners of fun parks, theme parks and fairgrounds have no legal obligation to have adequate first aid available for members of the public? Will she redouble the considerable effort that she has put into this case already and ensure that local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive talk to each other and possibly bring forward new law or guidance to ensure that the tragedy that affected my constituents' young daughter never happens to any young person again in such circumstances?

Anne McGuire: There is no statutory requirement to provide first aid facilities for the public, but it is encouraged in the guidance for fairgrounds and amusement parks agreed between the industry and the Health and Safety Executive. We want to ensure that good practice is followed so that the circumstances that my hon. Friend has described do not arise. I shall therefore ask the HSE to explore how good practice in first aid provision could be better promoted in the theme park and fairground sector, including the scope for it to be attached to public entertainment licences as a condition.

Tim Boswell: The tragic case of Megan Wilcox will remind the House—if indeed many Members are not already well aware of the situation—of the consequences for an individual family in the distressing circumstances of accidental death. More practically, it will remind us all that the aggregate consequences of trips and falls and so on are every bit as important as those of catastrophic safety accidents. In the light of that, will the Minister join me in expressing disappointment that in the five years since Ministers bravely set health and safety targets, there has been no clear evidence of improvement across the piece, and that the Department's recent performance report on health and safety shows that all three parts of the target are currently subject to slippage?

Anne McGuire: I echo the hon. Gentleman's words in the first part of his comments. The targets established in 2001 were challenging and it is disappointing that there appears to have been some slippage, but we have to reinforce constantly the importance not just of corporate but of individual responsibility for health and safety. I can give the House the assurance that the Health and Safety Executive will constantly reinforce the message that health and safety issues are everybody's business.

Stakeholder Pensions

Nadine Dorries: If he will make a statement on stakeholder pensions.

Stephen Timms: Almost 2.5 million stakeholder pensions have been sold in their first four years and are increasingly helping to ensure that everyone has the chance to save for a decent income in retirement.

Nadine Dorries: According to the Prime Minister, it is absurd to suggest that stakeholder pensions have failed. However, according to the Pensions Commission the vast majority of small company stakeholder schemes are empty shells with no contributing members. Who do we believe, the independent non-partisan commission or the Prime Minister?

Stephen Timms: Stakeholder pensions have enabled many people to start saving for their retirement. They have also led to sharp reductions in the charges for personal pensions across the board, and as the Minister who had a hand in starting them up six years ago I take some pride in the achievements that we have seen since then. There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed; a large proportion of employer-designated schemes do not currently have members, but the role of employers is, in our view, key to promoting pensions saving. Designation will give us an employer-based infrastructure for pensions saving. The challenge is to increase the use of that infrastructure, and that is what we intend to do.

Crispin Blunt: Given that the Pensions Commission found little evidence of increased contributions owing to stakeholder pension schemes, does the Minister share the same definition of success as the current chairman of the Labour party who, when he was a Pensions Minister, said that the scheme was a tremendous success?

Stephen Timms: As I said to the House, there are almost 2.5 million stakeholder pensions, and contributions to them in the last year for which we have data topped £2 billion, so they are making an important contribution. The work of the Pensions Commission is to advise us how we can further increase pensions saving and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like everyone on the Labour Benches, is very much looking forward to the commission's report later this year.

Edward Garnier: Whatever the merits or demerits of the stakeholder pension system, does the Minister agree that, for many of my constituents who were pensioners of British United Shoe Machinery, stakeholder pensions are of little assistance? The BUSM pension disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Will the Government apply their mind to looking into the matter and finding out where the money went and what can be done to assist the pensioners of that company in my constituency?

Stephen Timms: I am happy to look into the instance to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. In recent years, there have been too many instances of that kind, which is why we introduced the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, but I shall be happy to look at the particular case that he raises.

Jobcentre Plus

Hywel Williams: What representations he has received regarding the closure of Jobcentre Plus offices in north Wales and Porthmadog.

Margaret Hodge: Since July 2004, the Department has received representations from a number of interested parties. The development of Jobcentre Plus is not about closing offices but about transforming the service that we provide, thus making it more accessible, so that people obtain help in finding work at the same time as they apply for benefits. I am confident that Jobcentre Plus is well placed to deliver a high-quality service to people in north Wales.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that answer. The closure of the centre in Porthmadog will lead to the loss of some 50 jobs, and the closure of the Revenue office will also deal a further blow to the fragile and very local economy of north-west Wales. What discussions has she had with Economic Ministers in Cardiff regarding those economic effects of her policies?

Margaret Hodge: Every time we embark on a reconfiguration of services in a locality, we engage in extensive discussions to ensure that, if at all possible, alternative employment is found for some of the people who will be displaced by the reorganisation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make every effort that we can in those reorganisations to try to secure alternative employment for the people who will be affected by them.

Departmental IT Programme

Anne Main: If he will make a statement on the development of the IT programme for the modernisation of his Department.

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the development of the information technology programme for the modernisation of his Department.

Stephen Timms: The Department's programme is being designed to realise the enormous potential of IT to modernise and improve our services, building on successes such as the direct payment of benefits and the Jobcentre Plus online database of more than 400,000 current vacancies.

Anne Main: Is the Minister aware of the concerns expressed by some of his civil servants who will have to use the debt management IT service, who have said that the bits they have been allowed to see are not fit for purpose but that things are being rushed to meet certain dates, and that if the system goes live, we are going to be in a long-term mess?

Stephen Timms: I am aware of some concerns about the customer management system in Jobcentre Plus. Its implementation, which was due in June in some offices, was delayed until this month. There will be a further software release for that system during the summer, and we remain on track to complete its roll-out by the end of next year. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept the very striking examples of the successful use of IT in the welfare system. I have mentioned the online database of 400,000 jobs, which replaces the scruffy old postcards that Jobcentres used years ago. Smart terminals are now not only used in Jobcentres—I noticed one the other day at Stansted airport—and they will be appearing widely in the coming months. Direct payment has also been a success: 96 per cent. of benefit customers now receive their benefit by direct payments, instead of using the ration-book technology bequeathed to us by the previous Government. The hon. Lady should welcome that success as well.

Michael Fabricant: I am glad to hear from the Minister that version 999 is to be issued during the summer. He has a deserved reputation in IT. What is going wrong in his Department? Is it a case of garbage in, garbage out? Is the wrong systematic description of what is required being given to the software provider? Who will own up to saying what is going wrong with this, just as they have gone wrong with the tax credit system?

Stephen Timms: The Department has 35 major IT systems, including some of the largest in the world. Of course, it is a complex task to modernise and renew them. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remark. He is someone who also understands very well the potential of IT to improve and modernise public services. I hope that he will welcome the progress that has been made—for example, with the direct payment of benefits, which involved putting a new terminal on every post office counter position in the country. The system was on budget and on time, and it is doing a great job.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend mentioned the Jobcentre Plus terminals, which are incredibly successful and carry an amazing amount of data about the jobs that are available not just in the locality, but throughout the country. What analysis has he undertaken to find out how the customers have taken to using that kind of system? Does that system point the way forward for the design of systems in the future?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is another hon. Member who well understands the exciting potential that IT offers to modernising public services. The reaction to the job point system has been very positive, and it will become increasingly positive as the terminals appear in a wider variety of locations. Of course, in addition, the database of 400,000 vacancies is available online to any internet user anywhere. That is why it is the most popular of the Government's online applications.

David Taylor: Having spent three decades in public sector IT development before coming into this place, it seems to me that, far too often high-ranking civil servants and Ministers fall for the blandishments of the modern day snake oil salesmen who populate the private IT sector. When does the Minister expect that we will show some faith in the internal staff who know the systems and can develop new projects to a better standard and within time scales in the way in which the private sector has notably failed to do?

Stephen Timms: We do indeed need to take advantage of the skills and expertise of staff who work in our Department and agencies, but we should also be able to call on expertise from outside when it makes sense to do so. Getting that balance right by getting a good mix of suppliers from the private sector will be important in achieving the success that we are committed to bringing about.

Business of the House

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement. Following tributes to the right hon. Sir Edward Heath, the House will adjourn. The business for the remainder of the week will now be as follows:
	Tuesday 19 July—Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill.
	Wednesday 20 July—Motion to approve the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill, in turn followed by a motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
	Thursday 21 July—Second Reading of the London Olympics Bill.

Chris Grayling: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement and for making changes to this week's business so that the House today can remember a distinguished Member of more than 50 years' standing and a distinguished former Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Heath. [Laughter.]

David Heath: No relation, but indeed a distinguished Member of the House.
	May I ask the Leader of the House a brief question? He has obviously introduced new business for Wednesday this week. Given that a number of Back Benchers may want to speak on both the motion to approve the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2005 and the motion on the summer recess Adjournment, will he consider setting aside time for debate for both items of business?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that that can be arranged through the usual channels.

SIR EDWARD HEATH KG MBE

Tony Blair: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	Sir Edward Heath died yesterday after a long illness. I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in thanking the team of carers from Oxley Care who looked after him in the last few years. I know how grateful Ted was to them.
	There have been many handsome and well-merited tributes to Ted Heath as a Prime Minister, as a Member of this House for more than 50 years and Father of it, and as a man of vision, principle and integrity. He was quintessentially his own man. He made up his own mind and having done so, he was unshakable. But Ted Heath would have recognised, and have been proud, that it was his momentous decision to take Britain into the Common Market that would dominate the hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about him today. He might have been Prime Minister for less than four years, but few holders of this office have made such a lasting difference to this country, its direction and its place in the world.
	Ted Heath's commitment to Europe, and his determination that Britain should be at its heart, was born of the horrors that he witnessed while fighting to liberate the continent from the evils of fascism. These wartime experiences, as they did for many of his generation, shaped him as a man and a politician. They made him determined to do all that he could to ensure that Europe was never again ripped apart by conflict.
	Ted Heath could also certainly have claimed to have been the first modern Conservative leader. He came, as we know, from a relatively humble background in Broadstairs. He was a grammar school boy and through his own hard work and intelligence, he won a place at Oxford, where he became president of the union.
	It was at Oxford that Ted Heath first showed he was prepared to be unpopular in defence of his political views, when he joined those in his party who opposed appeasement and supported the anti-Chamberlain cause in the famous Oxford by-election. He was also a supporter of the republican Government in Spain, a result of a visit during the Spanish civil war, where he witnessed first-hand the destruction caused by air attacks.
	After distinguished military service in the Royal Artillery, he was elected Member of Parliament for Bexley in the 1950 general election. Reflecting his political passion for the next half century, his maiden speech was a plea for Britain not to stand aside from Europe, but to play its full role as an active partner. He was also a founder of the one nation Tory group, which he was to personify throughout his time in the Commons.
	On coming to Parliament, Ted Heath's talents were quickly recognised, and within five years he was Chief Whip. He showed enormous skill in this post, helping to keep his party together during the difficult days of the Suez crisis, despite his own deep personal reservations. As Chief Whip, he also had a prominent role in the appointment of Harold Macmillan as Eden's successor. In return, Ted Heath was eventually promoted to the Cabinet, and soon after entrusted with the task of heading Britain's negotiations to join the Common Market. Between 1961 and 1963, he toured Europe's capitals ceaselessly, clocking up more than 100,000 miles trying to reach agreement. I understand that the main bone of contention was agricultural policy. Ted Heath very nearly achieved agreement, only to have President de Gaulle veto Britain's membership.
	Interestingly, despite the intense and humiliating frustration of rejection by France, it never altered Ted Heath's view that Britain's future was in Europe. He saw correctly that de Gaulle's opposition was in fact a reason to proceed with membership, not to abandon it—that Britain had something unique and important to contribute to Europe. He also correctly recognised that the British alliance with the United States was stronger, not weaker, by dint of European membership.
	Ted Heath's hard work and intelligence during the difficult negotiations greatly enhanced his stature within the Government and the country. Winston Churchill was among the many who wrote to him to congratulate him on his efforts. In Europe, he won the prestigious Charlemagne prize, which had a practical benefit, as he used the money to buy a Steinway grand piano, which was later to move into No. 10 with him.
	Ted Heath's music and sailing were, of course, a big part of his life. I think it is safe to say, even with the many candidates now putting themselves forward on the Opposition Benches as potential successors, that he is likely to remain the only Tory leader to conduct at the Royal Albert hall and win the Sydney to Hobart yacht race during their time in the post.
	Ted Heath's time as Opposition leader is perhaps best known for sacking Enoch Powell, a decision that required great political courage, and for appointing Margaret Thatcher to the shadow Cabinet. [Laughter.] His victory in the 1970 general election was against all the odds, but his premiership came at a difficult time for the country. He was beset by problems on the economy, on industrial relations and in Northern Ireland. He showed his integrity and leadership, however, when, despite the opposition of some in his party and outside it, he offered a safe haven to 60,000 Ugandan Asians threatened by Idi Amin, a decision from which our country greatly benefited.
	Of course, the outstanding achievement of Ted Heath's time at No. 10 was in January 1973, when he took Britain into the European Economic Community. It was a political and a personal triumph for Ted Heath, but it was not enough, for a country hit by a three-day week, to save his Government. Three and a half years later, after entering No. 10, he called an early general election, but was narrowly defeated. Roy Jenkins often used to say that the tragedy was that Labour lost the election in 1970, which it should have won, and won the election in 1974, which it should have lost. Certainly, Ted would have agreed with the latter.
	When Ted Heath lost again in October 1974, he found himself challenged by Margaret Thatcher for the Conservative leadership, and she won. For the next 26 years, he remained on the Back Benches, a familiar sight in this place. Throughout, he never flinched from arguing for the one-nation Toryism he believed in, or from putting passionately the case for Europe. Ted was very blunt in his manner, though once you got to know him he was very kind. I remember that I first met him at a parliamentary reception in the mid-1980s shortly after I became a Member of this House. He said, "Are you an MP?" "Yes", I said. "Which party?" "Labour", I said. "Well, you don't look like it or sound like it", he said. [Laughter.] "What's more", he said, "as an Opposition, you're bloody useless." He then proceeded with remarkable insight to tell me exactly what we should have been doing.
	His trenchant criticism of his own party leadership must have been very irritating for them. Being myself, for obvious reasons, generally disposed towards party loyalty, I was never sure about it. As those of us who can recall him know, he was magnificent; he would fill the House. I can picture him now, standing below the Gangway, often speaking without a note, with humour, incisive argument and magisterial disdain for the opposing view—swatting away anyone ill-judged enough to make a hostile intervention. To quote again his old Balliol friend Roy Jenkins, he was a
	"great lighthouse which stands there, flashing out beams of light, indifferent to the waves which beat against him."
	That is indeed how he was: an extraordinary man, a great statesman, a Prime Minister our country can be proud of. We shall miss him.

Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute on behalf of Conservative Members to the memory of Sir Edward Heath, and also in paying tribute to those at Oxley Care who looked after him so devotedly in the last few years.
	Ted Heath was one of the political giants of the 20th century. As Chief Whip during Suez, as a Cabinet Minister under Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home, and above all as the Prime Minister whose single-minded determination took us into the European Economic Community, he made an historic contribution to our country. He was the last leader of the Conservative party to have served in the second world war. In common with the rest of his generation, his whole outlook on life was shaped by that titanic conflict. Even before it began, he was aware of the dangers that lay ahead. As a young man, he heard Hitler address a Nuremberg rally, and he actually met Goering, Goebbels and Himmler, whom he described as
	"The most evil man I've ever met".
	In the famous 1938 Oxford by-election, Ted Heath opposed the Conservative candidate, Quintin Hogg, and campaigned instead for A. D. Lindsay, the master of Balliol, who stood on an anti-appeasement platform. After the war, he saw political integration in Europe as the best way to avoid a repeat of its horrors. That became the moving force of his political career, and as Prime Minister he succeeded where Macmillan had failed, by taking Britain into the Common Market. It was controversial when he did so—he needed the votes of Members of other parties to get the legislation through the House—and it has remained controversial ever since. But Ted never wavered in his attachment to the European dream. He was utterly and unswervingly consistent. His maiden speech in this House was in the debate on the Schuman plan; his final speech was dominated by the same issue.
	Ted was less successful in achieving his other political objectives. Before the 1970 election, he outlined an exciting programme to revitalise the nation's economy based on a smaller state, lower taxes, less regulation and trade union reform. That platform, designed at the Selsdon Park hotel, provoked Labour into caricaturing his position. They depicted him as "Selsdon man" or a dangerous reactionary. Ted went through what every Conservative leader always faces in Opposition—the accusation just a few months before the election that they are lurching to the right. However, he won the 1970 election against the tide of expectation. It was a tribute to his determination to try to pursue the course that he believed to be right. His task was made much harder when Ian Macleod, his first choice as Chancellor and another political giant of the age, died tragically just weeks after the election. The problems of rampant inflation and overweening trade union power that were to dog his four years in office made him change course, and adopt instead policies that were unequal to the challenge. Yet many of the changes that he originally tried and failed to put in place were made 10 years later by his successor, Margaret Thatcher. The BBC's political editor said last night that Margaret Thatcher was a grocer's daughter in more senses than one. The fact that neither of them would perhaps welcome that thought made it no less appropriate.
	After leaving office, Ted remained true to his character and continued to court controversy, especially in the Conservative party, but he did so more often mischievously than wilfully. He never lost his wit, even if it was displayed in ways not always likely to be appreciated by his successors. When speaking at the Conservative party conference in 1981, at the height of the first Thatcher Government's unpopularity, he advised the conference representatives:
	"Please don't applaud—It may irritate your neighbour."
	Whatever disagreements he had or manufactured, he was a Conservative all his life. He remained a remarkable House of Commons man, serving as a Member continuously for 51 years. He became Father of the House, and it was fitting that one of his final acts as a Member of Parliament was to preside in October 2000 over the election of a new Speaker—something that he clearly enjoyed hugely, and which showed him in his element. He lamented the declining influence of Parliament in holding the Executive to account—a trend which he noted had taken place under Governments of both parties, and a development that many of us, indeed, regret.
	Ted was remarkable for the width and breadth of his outside interests and skills. How many leading politicians could have won the Sydney to Hobart race? How many Prime Ministers could have captained the British team to win the Admiral's cup? How many could have conducted world-class orchestras? He came from a humble background, and followed the then familiar route from grammar school to Oxford, but he never forgot his origins. Every year, Ted used to return to his home town of Broadstairs to conduct the Christmas carol concert. Music for him was not just a source of personal solace. It embodied the deeper harmonies which we, as human beings, live by. Because Ted was a private man, who did not wear his emotions on his sleeve, people often did not see his personal side, but we gain an occasional glimpse from his autobiography. His father, he wrote,
	"was an excellent craftsman, and his work was greatly admired by all who saw it. The earliest examples that I can remember were the money boxes—mine of mahogany, my brother's of oak—which he made in order that we might collect our small savings in them. Each was inscribed with our name, and I still have my beautiful mahogany box in my study".
	Today, we remember a Prime Minister who was a most distinguished parliamentarian, who was fearless in his views and rock-like in his integrity, and who always sought to serve his country to the very best of his ability. In this House we join together to mourn his passing.

Charles Kennedy: Despite the sadness of the occasion, I think that Sir Edward would want the House, as both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, to remember his sense of optimism as well as his warmth and wit, and very often his wisdom. I think that the Prime Minister was right to mention on a couple of occasions Roy Jenkins. Sir Edward and Roy were two politicians whom I knew from afar. In Roy's case, I came to know him extremely well, and in Sir Edward's, somewhat. They shared so much throughout their different political careers that paralleled each other. They knew each other well, not least on the issue of Europe.
	Many of us of a further generation have been motivated by and cared passionately about Europe. We look to a politician such as Sir Edward Heath and what he achieved. We look also at the present circumstances within the democratic Europe of today, including the difficulties that it is facing precisely because of democratic choices made in recent referendums in other countries. We must contrast these difficulties—which we hope are being reconciled peacefully through discussion—with the difficulties that motivated a previous generation, the members of which saw the differences within Europe being resolved only by bloodshed and war. That motivation for them and for the founding fathers that they looked to will, I hope, be one that motivates also the generation of European leaders today.
	In many respects, as I have said, the careers of Sir Edward and Roy Jenkins ran in parallel, not only through Europe. They remained confidantes and colleagues as well as being competitors right to the end, when they went head to head in a final run-off for the chancellorship of Oxford university. After that final democratic contest between the two of them, Roy used to tell the story of Sir Edward inviting him to his marvellous house in Salisbury, next to the cathedral and proudly showing Roy round—just the two of them were having dinner together as elder statesmen.
	At one point they ended up in the master bedroom. Sir Edward pointed out the view of the cathedral spire from the window. Roy being Roy said, "Ted, I think that this must be one of the 10 best bedroom views in England." There was silence. Then Sir Edward replied, "And what would be the other nine?"
	Sir Edward, in that Denis Healey sense, had a hinterland as a politician and as a statesman. In his case it was a hinterland that can literally be described as oceanic in every sense. On a personal level, when the Conservatives went into Opposition and I found myself elected leader of my party, for a number of years I sat during Prime Minister's questions where my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) now sits. Sir Edward sat where I am now standing. I have to share with the House something that for me summed him up. If there is a book to be published in future when perhaps none of us is in this place, it is the book of Sir Edward's running commentary in my right ear of the contributions in advance of my own during Prime Minister's questions, particularly his insightful running commentary of the contributions from the parliamentary Conservative party. One particular occasion comes to mind. The Prime Minister had just returned from a much-vaunted third-way summit involving Chancellor Schröder, President Clinton and Prime Minister Jospin. At the beginning of that week the French behaved in a completely unacceptable way. It was declared illegal in due course, and was very sensibly handled by the Prime Minister. It was a flouting of European law and a refusal to readmit British beef. The then leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), was on to the issue like a shot at Prime Minister's questions. He had a cavalcade of questions and was making extremely good headway over this difficulty, understandably at the Government's expense. He finished with a great flourish, saying that it was so much for the Prime Minister's "much-vaunted third way", and that as far as his socialist friend Mr. Jospin was concerned, it was more a "case of two fingers."
	The right hon. Gentleman sat down to great cheers and the waving of Order Papers from the more Euro-sceptical sections of the parliamentary Conservative party. At that point, sitting in the place now occupied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife, the sphinx sitting next to me moved imperceptively. He flicked a disapproving look, leaned over and said, "Such a vulgar little man." The House will adjourn today—I do not think it will divide on that proposition.
	With regard to Sir Edward, both on a very human level and on a statesman-like level, he was a gifted man, a good man and a very great man. One cannot say of many politicians of whatever persuasion that they changed the course of history, but he did, and for the better. We miss him very much.

Stuart Bell: I may be the only Member of the House who shook Ted Heath's hand after the election of 1970. I had flown over from New York to celebrate a great Labour victory and I was sitting in my hotel a few yards from the Albany, where Ted Heath lived. As the newspapers of the time said, Ted had sailed into 10 Downing street.
	Seeing all the crowds outside the Albany and being only a few yards away, I went down and stood among the crowds. As I stood there, finally they parted, a car came up, Ted Heath's hand jutted out of the window and I shook his hand. I covered my bets by going down to Transport house immediately to commiserate with Harold Wilson, who was there giving his kind thanks to our staff who, of course, were very respectful to him and gave him the kind of cheers that Ted Heath had received outside the Albany. Years later, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, when I saw Ted Heath and said, "I had my picture taken with you on the day of your election," he looked at me and said, "It didn't do much good, did it?"
	Later still, as an international lawyer, I represented Hermes, the tie company that makes the best of ties. I could recognise a Hermes tie a hundred yards away. I saw Ted Heath in the Smoking Room wearing a Hermes tie. I said to him, "Sir Edward"—we had more respect for him then—"You're wearing a Hermes tie. I am their lawyer." He looked at me and said, "I often wondered why they were so expensive."
	As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, Sir Edward was a fundamental European, on the basis of his war years. He made his first speech in 1950 on the European Coal and Steel Community, he tried to get us into the European Union, as it is now known, in 1963, and he took us in in 1973. One of the questions put to him by President Pompidou at the time was whether, if the United Kingdom joined the European Union, it would accept the common agricultural policy. Ted Heath gave that commitment of our country from that day and it still runs today.
	We have heard much of Ted Heath being a House of Commons man. He was a Back Bencher, a Whip, a Minister and Prime Minister. When he retired from the front line of politics, he stayed in the House for the rest of the 51 years. He saw us through two speakerships—your own, Mr. Speaker, and Lady Boothroyd's—and when the time was up, he used the famous phrase of your predecessor. Time was indeed up. He did not go to the Lords.
	I end by quoting a little poetry:
	  "He nothing common did or mean
	  Upon that memorable scene".
	That scene was the House of Commons, which he graced for 51 years.

Derek Conway: It is daunting to follow so many eloquent tributes to Sir Edward Heath, but not half as daunting as following him as the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Those who knew Ted well would have expected him to be generous and helpful to his successor, and indeed he was. He gave me sound advice and a great deal of encouragement. I wondered whether, having served in the House for 51 years, in his later years he had become a little tired of it all and had slowed down. The average length of service for an MP is between eight and 10 years, so 51 years would give any reasonable person time to slow down a bit.
	As I padded around the streets of Sidcup and Bexley village, I discovered that Ted was still an assiduous Member of Parliament. Although the House rightly pays tribute to his time as Prime Minister and his renown as an international statesman, the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup will remember a famous Member of Parliament, but one who took an enormous amount of time, patience and trouble over their concerns. They were often surprised when Ted dealt with their concerns personally rather than using a special adviser or assistant.
	Not only did Ted do the normal jobs such as holding surgeries and visiting schools, but he was a great champion on local issues—for example, selective education still survives in the London borough of Bexley. Ted was, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said, a tremendous champion for selective education, having benefited from grammar school himself, and he fought tooth and nail to establish Bexley grammar school, where he is still revered.
	Tributes have been paid to Ted's involvement in the European issue. He was clearly an unashamed Europhile, so naturally he thought that the channel tunnel was wonderful. Sadly for the residents of Sidcup, the proposed rail link went smack through the middle of his constituency, which resulted in a conflict between his avowed Europhile beliefs and his constituents' interests. He stuck by his constituency and helped his constituents fight for a more sensible route that damaged fewer homes. I have discovered that people had an enormous wealth of respect and affection for their Member of Parliament.
	I have known Ted since I was 18, when I was northern area Young Conservative chairman. Our leader was my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was young and dashing—he had a sports car and a trendy beard. Ted encouraged the Conservative party youth movement, and he used to have the Young Conservative officers round for dinner at No. 10 or lunch at Chequers, which was impressive. He also used to encourage young musicians and he enjoyed his sport. He will be remembered with affection not only in this House, but outside it.
	Michael Brown, who is now a distinguished columnist in The Independent, is one former Member who will remember Ted with affection. He served in this House from 1979 to 1997, and he used to sit behind Ted when Ted sat in the seat that is currently occupied by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He used to contribute vociferously and frequently to debates, and his comments made Ted more and more irritable. On the day that Michael Brown was appointed a Government Whip, he was wandering down the Library Corridor, when Ted came out of the Smoking Room—as a former Chief Whip, Ted had an enormous affection for the Whips Office. Michael expected Ted to amble by and ignore him, which he usually did, but on this occasion Ted turned around and said, "I see that they have managed to shut you up at last." By tradition, Government Whips cannot speak in this Chamber.
	The party leaders and others have rightly paid tribute to Ted Heath the statesman but, for the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup, he was not only an extraordinarily able man, but a conscientious MP and, more importantly, a very good man.

Robert Key: My late constituent, Sir Edward Heath, was a very great Englishman. When, after just one year in this House, the Government Chief Whip asked me whether I would fulfil the unofficial role of Parliamentary Private Secretary to an ex-Prime Minister, which is traditional in our party, it led to several comments in the newspaper diaries. As has been said, it was an act of bravery, but I have never regretted taking up that challenge, because I learned that Sir Edward was not only a great Englishmen, but esteemed enormously throughout Europe and beyond as a man who was prepared to lay down his life for his beliefs. He fought against Nazism, he joined in the democratic battle, he challenged the establishment and he faced up to the realities of Britain and its economy in the 1970s. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, he was ahead of his time, but he achieved an enormous amount.
	When Sir Edward asked me, his PPS, to find him a house, it seemed a little beyond the call of duty. Within a few weeks, however, I had found him a house in Salisbury close. When he came down to see that wonderful house, he looked around it without saying a word, and then we drove back to London. At about midnight, he phoned me and said, "I hope that they have not sold my house." He purchased the lease and then the freehold on "Arundells", and became a figure of great affection in Salisbury and south Wiltshire.
	Anyone who doubts his capacity for being an ordinary human being should talk to anyone who ever worked for him in his private office—his constituency secretaries and his political staff, many of whom, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), have gone on to do other things with great success and distinction. Sir Edward was held in very great affection by all those people. He inspired enormous loyalty. That is no surprise, given that he had been a distinguished musician used to holding an orchestra and a chorus together, as well as a distinguished soldier under fire.
	During his distinguished political career, Sir Edward also managed to inspire loyalty among his dear constituents, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). Having travelled with Ted in the capitals of Europe in the 1980s and met, with him, some of the leaders of those countries, I know that he never for one moment forgot the importance of his constituents and why he was where he was. One evening in the château de Rambouillet, when we had been over to meet the President of France and were enjoying his hospitality, there was a sudden flurry and the French Justice Minister turned up. He had asked to see Ted because he was engaged in a prolonged correspondence with him about a constituent who had been arrested and thrown into prison in Paris for some reason. Ted had immediately taken the case up so, when he saw the President, he told him that he was most disturbed about it, and immediately the Justice Minister was dispatched to sort it out. Ted never forgot the importance of his constituents.
	In Salisbury, where he lived for the past 20 years, he made a name for himself as the man who goes and talks to people. One will find 20 and more pubs in south Wiltshire where people will say, "That's where Ted sits", or, "That's where Ted used to come and have his malt." The enormous affection in which people in Salisbury hold him extends right across the political spectrum and the age spectrum. We should not forget the generosity with which he raised millions of pounds for Salisbury cathedral over the years to maintain that magnificent edifice, at the same time as restoring his own wonderful house.
	Sir Edward Heath has made an enormous impression on a very large number of people in many walks of life. Many tributes have been paid to him today, and I merely add my own. He was a wonderful man who was proud of his country. He loved his Queen, our constitution and our way of life, for which he was prepared to lay down his life. Right to the end, he was shouting the odds for democracy in our country.
	Yes, he had his difficulties with his successor as leader, and harsh words were expressed on all sides, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher for her warm tribute to him, about which he would no doubt be shrugging his shoulders.
	I do not doubt that, when we think back on the life of Ted Heath, he will be seen not only as a very great Englishman, a great democrat and a great European, but a very warm human being. Let us not forget how proud he was of his house, the paintings, every bit of china and every photograph on the piano. Let us not forget how proud he was of his garden, as the greatest armchair gardener Salisbury has ever known, or that he was enormously proud to serve one with broad beans out of his precious garden, where he knew every plant, tree and shrub.
	Ted Heath was a great Prime Minister and a great member of the Conservative party. He was always loyal to our party and never voted against it in all his years, even though he may have sometimes had his disagreements with our leadership. We are very grateful for the life of Sir Edward Heath and, in Salisbury, we will remember him for a very long time as a great moonraker who was formerly a man of Kent but adopted with love in the county of Wiltshire.

Gisela Stuart: Ted Heath had a huge influence on my personal life of which I do not think that he was ever aware in his lifetime. I arrived on 18 January 1974, hardly speaking any English, during the three-day week, and I learned all my English and understanding of the British political system by asking awkward questions such as "Why do they call him, 'The Grocer'?", "What is a Tory?", and "How does the electoral system work?". It was because he brought this country into the European Union and signed the European Communities legislation that I was able to come here to live and work and enjoy the four freedoms. He left a huge legacy and is hugely respected on mainland Europe.
	I make one brief observation. When our current Prime Minister was awarded the Charlemagne prize, I went over to Aix-la-Chapelle, and Edward Heath was there as one of the honoured guests who are there on every occasion and greatly revered. The people of Aachen, as I like to call it, were always extremely proud of the fact that they spotted him as one to watch when he was a young Back Bencher and not recognised in terms of promotion. As, in this case, the second British Prime Minister was receiving the Charlemagne prize, their only regret was that they did not spot his talent as early as they did the previous recipient's. The commitment to Europe is great, but I hope that, while the next generation might be different, it will be recognised that many in my generation, such as me, have benefited and become Europeans through their life experiences, and I pay tribute to Sir Edward Heath for that.

John Gummer: I think that I owe more to Ted Heath than anyone else in the House because he did for me what he was unable to do for himself—he found me a wife. His quality as a friend—a friendship which began when he was my neighbour as a candidate in Greenwich and continued when I became Member of Parliament for Lewisham, West—was remarkable. It was hard for those who found him difficult because he did not know them, and who found him shy because he was, to know how warm he was, and how far he would go to help those who were young. His commitment to the young continued right to the end of his life. I happened to talk to someone this afternoon who remarked that as a 20-year-old he met Ted Heath at a function, they began to talk, and half an hour later they were still talking, and Ted was still fascinating and still wanted to learn from and hear as well as talk to a young person. He had that quality throughout his life. His friendship and the warmth of his character came through to those who knew him well.
	For my generation, Ted represents something particular and special. He was never prepared to allow people to be bullied. He would not have the bullying that came from the natural hegemony of the Ulster Unionists. Nor would he have the bullying that came from those who thought that they could use the bomb and the bullet. He would not accept that we should have a society in which any section should be able to control the rest, as he felt that the trade unions, in their more militant guise, were seeking to do. He did not want there to be the kind of society in which people such as him could not progress to the top, and he never had a chip on his shoulder about it—he was enormously grateful that he lived in a society in which what he did was possible. That is a lesson, if I may say so, for many others—no chip on the shoulder but simply a recognition that this was that kind of society.
	Ted was also clear that nobody should bully people because of the colour of their skin. The immediate and absolute action that he took about the speech by Enoch Powell was a pivotal moment, as was his acceptance, to which the Prime Minister rightly pointed, of those east African Asians who fled the tyranny of Idi Amin.
	At all points in his life, Ted stood up for those who could not stand up for themselves. He saw that as a natural part of being a one-nation Conservative. Those of us who hold that view of society have an enormous amount to thank him for.
	Of course history will think of Ted Heath, and so should we, as the man who understood that it was patriotic to see Britain at the centre of the European Union, as part and parcel of a movement that could ensure that the nations of Europe would find their future together—as nations, but together—rather than in the destruction of each other in the absence of a mechanism to solve the problems that inevitably existed between them. He was consistent in that view, and was saddened by people's failure to see that the real idealism was not what we in Britain could get out of the European Union, but what we could contribute to it. That is what he understood: that a Europe without Britain would lose so much. It was that way round. That is how he always saw our membership of the European Community, and subsequently of the European Union.
	As for those who knew Ted personally, it will be for warmth, laughter and above all kindness that we will remember him. Of course he was a great House of Commons man. There were the side comments, and the remarkable ability to be tougher, sharper and more difficult than almost anyone I have ever known. All that will be remembered and retold again and again; but for those who knew him, the one word "kindness" will come through all the time. No one who knew him will forget that.

Alan Williams: In the 1960s, when I came to the House not knowing Edward Heath at all well, I found a man who was easier to respect than to like. I found it difficult to identify the warm, humorous man described to me continually by my long-term pair Terence Higgins—although later, thankfully, I came to see those qualities.
	We talk today of the enormous stature that Edward Heath achieved, but we look back and realise that, remarkably, he achieved that in one of the shortest premierships since the war. That brief period was marked by a surprise victory, and ended with a surprise defeat; but in between, he made a decision of monumental importance to this country, which showed the tremendous character of the man and the fact that he was willing to take any risk with his own career to do what he thought was right for the country.
	A measure of the man was that having lost the two 1974 elections and having then been deprived of a leadership that he felt was his, he did not flee up the Corridor. He did not go to the House of Lords for a comfortable, quiet existence. He chose to spend a further quarter of a century as a Back Bencher in the House of Commons. That is how much he loved this House. I think he took almost as much pride in becoming Father of the House towards the end of his career as he took in securing the leadership of his party.
	In his final speech, Ted Heath urged us to protect the rights and also the standing of the House of Commons. He was to the end a House of Commons man, and I am sure that that is how he would have been happy to be remembered. I think we want to remember him for more than that, however. I think we want to remember a man of unshakeable integrity, which is the quality that the House admires most.

Alan Beith: The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), spoke of the period during which Ted Heath was Prime Minister. I came to the House during that period, and I am the only current Member of Parliament to have done so. The two events were not unconnected. Ted Heath's Government was growing in unpopularity when I won a by-election, although that was not because of Europe. Indeed, I do not suppose that I would have won the by-election if that had been the reason, for we had supported him unflinchingly against fervent opposition from much of the Labour party during that time. Shortly afterwards came the February 1974 election. But like most of us who were not members of his party, I got to know him much better later in my parliamentary life than in those early stages when he was the more distant figure of Prime Minister.
	I echo the comments of other Members about Ted's kindness and courtesy. It was not that Ted always spoke to one; in fact, he was a man without much small talk, by which I mean that he did not say anything if he did not have anything to say—a principle that many of us should perhaps adopt in more circumstances. However, when he did have something to say, he said it with enormous wit and often with kindness. I experienced that kindness on a number of occasions when he was encouraging and helpful to me. I am sure that that was the experience of some Members in other parties who had the privilege of spending time in the House with him.
	Ted Heath was a Prime Minister with whom I had one fundamental agreement and a number of less significant but politically important disagreements. The agreement was Europe, the disagreements were on a wide range of issues that made him a Conservative and me a Liberal Democrat, but I still remember with relish one experience before I came into the House: the occasion when he was seen leaving London sporting a red rosette in the middle of a general election while leading the Conservative party. A number of journalists pressed him on why that was so until he eventually said—some Members, including the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), will remember—"It is because I am going to the north-east." It was not because of any hope of improving the still unimproved Conservative fortunes in the north-east. It was because, in those days, the Conservatives fought the north-east in red, the Liberals in blue and Labour in green.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Reference has been made to the contribution that Sir Edward made in Northern Ireland. During his time as Prime Minister, we had some of the most difficult years of what have become known as the troubles, particularly the early 1970s. We had the largest loss of life in 1972, while he was Prime Minister. While we on this Bench would have had our differences with Sir Edward, most notably over the Sunningdale agreement and entry into the European Economic Community, we recognise his contribution.
	It has already been referred to that Sir Edward was a Prime Minister who did not believe that terrorism should succeed and, in Northern Ireland, he provided the Army to counter the activity in the early 1970s of the newly formed Provisional IRA. He was a statesman and that was obvious from his approach not only in Northern Ireland but on other issues. In dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland, he brought his experience of the second world war and his knowledge of the Army to bear in very difficult and trying times for the people not only of Northern Ireland but of the United Kingdom. We salute his courage in terms of the decisions that he had to make at that time in countering terrorism and in dealing with the threat that existed there and which sadly continues even to this day.
	I would like on a personal level to pay tribute to Sir Edward as a Member of Parliament. He was the Father of the House when I was first elected to the House of Commons and one could see that he was greatly devoted to this House. As other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, he remained here to make his contribution long after he lost his position as Prime Minister. As a new MP, I held him as someone for whom there was great respect and admiration for the contribution that he made to the House. We will all mourn his passing as a great parliamentarian and statesman who undoubtedly left his mark on the United Kingdom.

Ian Taylor: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I met Ted Heath early on in my political career. I was national chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students in 1968 when the students were rioting, and Sir Edward Boyle encouraged me to go to see the then Leader of the Opposition at Albany. I did so increasingly; I went once a month. One of the people who opened the door to his flat, who subsequently became Foreign Secretary, was Douglas Hurd, now Lord Hurd. He was very encouraging to me.
	Ted Heath came to the national conference of the Federation of Conservative Students on a day that was not necessarily his best. He was in one of his more taciturn moods. Those colleagues who remember Ted in one of those moods know that it was quite hard work sometimes to keep the conversation going. Some 20 people were introduced to Ted, and he grumbled and grunted and I tried to animate the conversation. As he left—everyone had disappeared—he broke into a broad smile, shifted his shoulders in his typical way and said, "Hmm, not bad. I agreed with some of the views that you gave to these people. I must make use of you more often."
	That was one of the more difficult periods, but I should point out that although Ted was unfailingly encouraging, he was also a hard taskmaster. I was lucky enough to sit on the policy committee between 1970 and 1974, which was chaired by Chris, now Lord, Patten. Ted showed great concern about the way in which policy had to shift in reaction to some very difficult events, such as the problems with the unions and with Rolls-Royce. He did not take those decisions easily. Those of us who argued their case within that committee—I, for my part, was a very lowly person—were nevertheless part of those discussions, which provided a real insight into, and showed concern for, the state of the nation. Moreover, as others have said, Ted had a deep understanding of the problems of unemployment. To some extent, unemployment is no longer a focus of political debate, but in the period 1970 to 1974, Ted, remembering the 1930s, took very seriously and was pained by the problems that he had to face.
	I entered the House in 1987, and Ted always encouraged me. I have possibly been known as a pro-European, and I remember making what for me was a passionately pro-European speech, much to the irritation of one or two of my colleagues. As I passed Ted sitting in the Chamber, he nodded to me, so I sat down in the seat next to him. He said, "Hmm. Not really pro-European enough." But when I later became chairman of the European Movement, he was unfailingly supportive and was ready to make speeches and to go anywhere. He wanted to ensure that there were those of us who carried the torch for his insight—an insight into the importance of Britain's playing its part, with other European nations, in providing a structure to resolve crises that, in his earlier years, could be resolved only by terrible conflict.
	Ted was a great man and he did have that hinterland. In a sense, it was an irony that he was taken more seriously ill after attending the Salzburg music festival. It was his interest in music that drove him forward. Those of us lucky enough to have visited his homes in London and Salisbury remember how central music was to his whole persona, to his wit and to his amazing stories about the people whom he had met, particularly in China, which became a very important part of his life.
	The Prime Minister mentioned something that illustrates Ted's political courage. Ted was an early member of the "One Nation" group, of which my late father-in-law, Lord Alport, was also a founder. What is sometimes forgotten is that Enoch Powell was a member of that group in the 1950s; indeed, he was its secretary. Many years later, in the 1960s, when Ted dismissed Enoch Powell from the Tory party, it was an old friend whom he was dismissing, which made that decision even more remarkably courageous.
	Ted was a man of principle. He had views, based on decency and one-nation politics, that many of us in the Tory party still hold. He was a great statesman, a great Member of this House and a great individual. I shall miss him a lot.

Simon Hughes: I just want to offer a very brief postscript to the excellent tributes from the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) and the leader of the Tory party. I want to pay testimony to the work that Sir Edward did for constituents during my time in this House, and not just in the normal way. He also worked to ensure that on issues affecting south-east London, colleagues from across the parties did what they were meant to do, and that they did it together in order to be more effective. He ensured that we worked together courteously, effectively and efficiently, and in doing so he sometimes provided great hospitality. I remember, for example, being given a very luxurious breakfast at his flat as we discussed a complex constituency case.
	In 1974—the year the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) came to Britain—I, along with some 11 other Britons, went, through a bursary, to the College of Europe, in Bruges. We arrived there as British students to find that Britain was hugely enhanced by what Edward Heath had done as Prime Minister. The status of Britain had been changed in the eyes of our European peers. That generation of students saw Britain differently.
	When we were doing post-graduate European studies and Edward Heath was defeated for the leadership, it came as a shock to our colleagues. They were shocked that a European statesman could have been moved out of his position as leader of the Tory party. I want to pay tribute, above all, to the enhanced reputation that he gave Britain in Europe in the 1970s. He was truly a European statesman then; he has remained a European statesman; and I am sure that he will always be remembered as a European statesman.

Hywel Williams: I would like to associate my party, Plaid Cymru, and the Scottish National party with the many tributes paid to Sir Edward Heath in this place and earlier today. It is a daunting task, given that he entered this place before I was born—and by some stretch. In fact, his career would be remarkable if only for its longevity: he spent 51 years in this place as a Member and Prime Minister. That is almost unique and is exceeded by few: I can think of my predecessor Member but two for Caernarfon, David Lloyd George—and it is right to mention those two in the same breath.
	Sir Edward Heath's career was remarkable, of course, for many things other than its length. His hinterland beyond politics was his great interest in sailing and music, but his career will stand in history because of his achievement in taking the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community and his other achievements arising from his personal commitment, his determination and his political skill. We on this Bench salute him.

Peter Luff: I certainly wish to associate myself with all the generous tributes given by right hon. and hon. Members today. Speaking as someone who had the great privilege of working for Sir Edward for three years as head of his private office, I would point out that there is one aspect that has not been mentioned today or in the tributes in the national media.
	There is much I could say about his courage, which I saw, at first hand, between 1980 and 1982 when I worked for him. For example, there was his courage in warning South Africa of the dangers of apartheid and also his courageous role in conveying to the British Government the basis on which the Chinese were prepared to settle the future of Hong Kong. I was there. After his comments on apartheid, we were bundled out of South Africa and I was there in the Great Hall of the People with Deng Xiaoping, when he revealed his plans to Sir Edward. Margaret Thatcher chose not to believe that the Chinese could use Sir Edward as a vehicle for communication and negotiations were stalled for some years as a result.
	I was also with him at the time of the publication of "North-South: A Programme for Survival", better known as the Brandt report. I accompanied Sir Edward—or "EH" as his staff were privileged to call him—on many of his UK tours to raise awareness of the importance of tackling world poverty. In his later years, that became a cause that was every bit as important to him as membership of the European Union. His dedication to it, long before it was as fashionable as it is today, is something that should be remembered and honoured. Making poverty history was his objective long before the phrase was coined. This loyal member of his staff will miss him greatly.

Richard Ottaway: As a yachtsman, I am embarrassed to say that my membership of the Tory party owes as much to Sir Edward's yachting ability as anything else. The fact that a Leader of the Opposition could take a yacht half the way around the world and win the Sydney-Hobart race—one of the great ocean classics—won my admiration and that of a generation. Sponsored by Sir Max Aitken, it remains one of the great sporting feats to this day and it irritated the hell out of Harold Wilson! It did not end there. As Prime Minister and on Morning Cloud, he won the greatest trophy of them all, the Admiral's cup, captaining the English team into the bargain. He continued with yachting success for many years, which showed his talents to the full. He did it because it refreshed his mind. He once said, "You cannot raise a yacht and worry about something else at the same time".
	Ted knew that he was good. On one occasion in Cowes, my wife sat next to him at dinner—it was her turn—and asked him how he managed to be an accomplished musician, Prime Minister and a winning yachtsman all at the same time. He paused briefly and said: "Pure brilliance". The flags in Cowes will be at half mast today.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I would like to pay my own tribute to Sir Edward. As Father of the House, he was always very kind and supportive to me and to Mary, my wife. In recent years, he was a very welcome visitor to Speaker's House and I greatly appreciated his advice. I well remember his masterful and informative speeches on Europe, when I was a Back Bencher. I was always aware that I was in the presence of a man who had volunteered to serve his country when it faced the dangers of fascism. He will be missed by this House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Five o'clock.